Only problem is that's not a crime. It might lend itself to his guilt, but not criminal in-and-of-itself.

Monsignor: We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men. Connor: I do believe the monsignor's finally got the point. Murphy: Aye.

Only problem is that's not a crime. It might lend itself to his guilt, but not criminal in-and-of-itself.

Well, you're right of course, but if a carjacker takes a car by hitting the driver with a club and the victim is run over in the process, do they charge the carjacker with "Hit-and-Run" on top of the original crime? Seems odd.

It's all semantics of course. We're all pretty well ingrained to call all vehicle crashes "accidents". Most are probably caused by negligence, but I've never heard of anyone reporting a "Negligent" to anybody.

Certainly in this case it was an "intentional". So maybe his lawyer will argue that there's no law against leaving the scene of an intentional.

"Yeah, I was drunk, ran a red light and had an accident."

"Officers report that the driver was doing well over 100MPH when the accident occurred"

Shouldn't it either be "assault with a deadly weapon" or "leaving the scene of an accident"?

Sounds like a smart D.A. to me. Assume that the little blurb of an article pretty much has it right. A decent lawyer might well be able to assert and at least raise a reasonable doubt that the driver did not intend to actually hit the cyclist. Hm, perhaps a really good lawyer could enve push it into reasonable doubt that he even intended to come close, a jury might buy that the guy was just p*ssed off and leaving in a huff.

Now look at teh leaving teh scene of an accident. Does any of this help the drive on that charge? Nope.

A good D.A. makes sure to have those back-up charges there to make sure if a bad guy gets lucky he still does not walk scott free.

The charge doesn't use the word accident to imply that the collision was unintentional. That's just the wording used in the Highway Traffic Act to describe any collision between a vehicle and anything else. It's perfectly valid to charge the motorist with the crime 'Assault with a weapon' and the HTA offence 'Leaving the scene'.

In any collision, the drivers are required to exchange insurance and identification information. Failing to do so for any reason (including running away from a crime) justifies the charge.

Well, you're right of course, but if a carjacker takes a car by hitting the driver with a club and the victim is run over in the process, do they charge the carjacker with "Hit-and-Run" on top of the original crime? Seems odd.

Yeah, It does seem odd, but we actually would do that.

Originally Posted by WalterMitty

It's all semantics of course. We're all pretty well ingrained to call all vehicle crashes "accidents". Most are probably caused by negligence, but I've never heard of anyone reporting a "Negligent" to anybody.

Certainly in this case it was an "intentional". So maybe his lawyer will argue that there's no law against leaving the scene of an intentional.

"Yeah, I was drunk, ran a red light and had an accident."

"Officers report that the driver was doing well over 100MPH when the accident occurred"

Shouldn't it either be "assault with a deadly weapon" or "leaving the scene of an accident"?

Thankfully not. The two crimes are independent of one another and when you have a real jerk like this it is nice to pour on as many charges as you can. If his driver's license was suspended I would charge him with that too

Monsignor: We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men. Connor: I do believe the monsignor's finally got the point. Murphy: Aye.